Topic: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God - page 8. (Read 37219 times)

Who said I was trying to convince him?

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough in what I meant to say.  I meant that it it doesn't matter if he posts a peer-reviewed study in the sense that he's just going to believe whatever he wants to believe, anyway; he's already posted a couple peer-reviewed links and it's clear he doesn't understand what he's posting.  And then you can try to explain to him that he doesn't understand it or that it doesn't support what he's saying in any way, and he's just going to either 1) ignore you and keep going anyway, or 2) meme you to death.

Basically, it doesn't matter what he posts because he just always thinks he's right no matter how wrong he is.  He's like BADecker's equal-and-opposite alter ego.

It DOES matter. You know why? Because as you said he continually just dances around the issues. As long as he is dancing around the issues and not making a claim to something substantive that he claims supports his argument, he can never be proven wrong, because he is never even really declaring his position. If he declares his position he has to defend it, and can be proven wrong with science pointing in the other direction. Anything else is just bullshit bickering that is a waste of time and has nothing to do with facts.

...ignoring the fact that people can logically come to the conclusion that something (God or Intelligent Designer) created this world regardless of what they wanted to believe in.

Religion will never end. some religious people may change with the times, but most people will hang onto religion because they need that faith to get themselves through things, they need something to believe in.

It doesn't matter.  He already tried that once and all it did was contradict previous statements he had made, and fail to support everything else.  He claims to see the world "very very" accurately and can't even accurately understand the implications of his references, whether direct and indirect.  He just makes up crap as he goes and then uses appeal to ridicule when he's shown to be wrong.

Pick ONE SOURCE STUDY, and provide the premise which you believe it supports. Anything else is just bullshit.

I recommend the works cited section at the end of Sex At Dawn.

For the hundredth time, just because it is in a book doesn't make it science. Furthermore you insist on using a large list of books which you claim are sources, which provides a convenient way to not have to defend specific ideological stances of yours as well as being a waste of everyone's time. Throwing a list of books at people is not a source.

I suggest you find an actual peer reviewed study and stand behind it instead of playing these cowardly intellectually dishonest games. If you don't understand your ideology well enough to defend it in your own words with actual scientific sources, then you probably don't have any ground to stand on. Let me know when you figure out how actual science works.

Pics are now links to the books! First four books are available at no cost! Rejoice and learn, free minds of the world:

Note: You'll need a torrent app for some of them, I recommend qBittorrent. Avoid uTorrent.









----Sorry, final two books are paywalled for now!----

No one thinks you are trolling Liathon. We all know you are just a deluded uneducated utopian Marxist useful idiot pushing agendas you have very little true understanding of. You like the sound of all these ideas, you just have no clue how it could be successfully implemented, and you confuse social sciences with real science giving you the delusion that science is on your side. Funny how you can never provide this "science" for our peer review though, even though you do love repeatedly making the claim your ideology is backed by science.

How can you claim that your "view" is accurate when you refuse to reply to those who point out your errors?

You won't even defend your "view". How can it be correct?

I simply call it like I see it, and it just so happens that I see the world very, very accurately. I won't claim I'm not having fun here, though.

Reality check: The truth is so far from where you imagined it was, that when I plainly lay it out for you, it feels like you're being trolled.

It's like the moment you jump into a pool - the water feels shockingly cold, but only because you haven't had time to adapt your biological thermometer yet. Relax, you're not going to freeze to death, and in a few moments the water will feel just right.

Oh my God... this thread is hilarious. Expert trolling OP, keep up the good work. As silly as most of these threads are, the reactions by people trying to legitimately argue this claim is too good. Priceless.

It's coming.

It does sound absurd -- which is why I chose it to catch your attention -- but it isn't.  Rather, it highlights an absurdity in your own argument.  Just because you can link to a logical fallacy doesn't mean it is one.

Explanation:  From what I understand, here are your points of argument:  Pleasure is good, and the more pleasure people have, the better.  Sex is extremely pleasurable (and has some other healthy benefits), so it's good for people.  Marriages are more frequently ending in divorce, and because pleasure derived from feelings of love can be psychologically and biochemically related to pleasure derived from sex, we might as well just skip the whole marriage thing, skip the potential consequences of a failed marriage (e.g. "cravings"), and just fuck as many people as we can to enjoy ourselves and each other.  Sound about right?

Presumably, the feelings of love described in the study are those of self report.  That is, someone says, "Hey, I'm having feelings of love right now," and an MRI shows a biochemical pleasure response mapped similarly to that associated with sexual arousal.

By asking you the question I did, I'm highlighting an important consideration that either you neglected, or that wasn't accounted for in your study.

Let's say you love your mother (I hope you do!) and you say, "Okay, I'm having feelings of love for my mother."  Then, we perform an MRI.  Let's suppose two possible outcomes: 1) The MRI reveals a similar biochemical activation, or 2) The MRI reveals an entirely different biochemical activation.

If #1 is the result, then you might want to consider ditching your mom and getting a whole bunch of moms.  After all, you wouldn't want to be plagued by the possibility that your mom tragically dies or something and you get motherly love cravings (non-sexual or sexual, it doesn't matter since the biochemical response is similar).  You might also get that much more pleasure out of having a few moms per week.   But, I hope you would think this solution is ridiculous -- you love your mom because, well...she's your mom, and there's a ton of value to be gained through continuing that relationship...monogamously.

If #2 is the result, then now you have a design flaw in that we have identified a separate kind of love not accounted for in the study.  First of all, it doesn't really do much good to have two mutually exclusive definitions of the same word; that creates a lot of confusion which will have trickle down effects in both social and scientific contexts, likely resulting in blurry interpretations.  So, perhaps instead you make a distinction between "maternal love" (or brotherly, sisterly, paternal, etc.) and "sexual love."  If this is the case, then a correlation between "sexual love" and "sexual arousal" isn't really telling us much of anything except the obvious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I know a number of liberal feminists who wouldn't dream of having sex on the first date (or even the second or third) because of the message it would send.
As though sex somehow devalues you as a person. It taints the entirety of the date that came before. It makes a long-term relationship impossible. It's the puritanical false notion that lust can never become love.

So how does all of this really work?

In order to map out the location of sexual desire and love, researchers reviewed 20 studies that used fMRI technology. First, they looked at the regions of the brain that lit up when sparked by love. They then compared the findings of all the papers to see what regions were activated when someone felt aroused or amorous.  

What they discovered was a bit surprising -- love and sexual desire both activate the striatum, showing a continuum from sexual desire to love. Each feeling impacts a different area of the striatum.

"Sexual desire activates the ventral striatum, the brain’s reward system. When someone enjoys a great dessert or an orgasm, it’s the ventral striatum that flickers with life. Love sparks activity in the dorsal striatum, which is associated with drug addiction.

“You don’t make a connection that love is a drug; it acts just like drug addiction," says Pfaus. "Anyone who has had someone break up with them feels like a drug addict in withdrawal. You end up getting cravings.”

But it doesn't stop there. The researchers also saw an overlap between sexual desire and love in the insula. The brain's insular cortex (or insula) and the striatum play a role in both sexual desire and love. The insula is nestled deep within the cerebral cortex and influences emotions.
While the striatum resides in the forebrain and receives messages from the cortex. “[The insula] translates emotional feelings into meaning,” explains Pfaus. “You take the internal state and give it external meaning.”

The areas of overlap indicate that sexual desire transitions into love in many cases, and the feelings aren’t separate.

“Even love at first sight, can it happen? Of course it can happen," says Pfaus.

And when it does happen, do you want to play Scrabble with each other? No, when it happens, all you want to do is fuck. 


Study here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22353205

INTRODUCTION: One of the most difficult dilemmas in relationship science and couple therapy concerns the interaction between sexual desire and love. As two mental states of intense longing for union with others, sexual desire and love are, in fact, often difficult to disentangle from one another.

AIM: The present review aims to help understand the differences and similarities between these two mental states using a comprehensive statistical meta-analyses of all functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies on sexual desire and love.

METHODS: Systematic retrospective review of pertinent neuroimaging literature.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Review of published literature on fMRI studies illustrating brain regions associated with love and sexual desire to date.

RESULTS: Sexual desire and love not only show differences but also recruit a striking common set of brain areas that mediate somatosensory integration, reward expectation, and social cognition. More precisely, a significant posterior-to-anterior insular pattern appears to track sexual desire and love progressively.

CONCLUSIONS: This specific pattern of activation suggests that love builds upon a neural circuit for emotions and pleasure, adding regions associated with reward expectancy, habit formation, and feature detection. In particular, the shared activation within the insula, with a posterior-to-anterior pattern, from desire to love, suggests that love grows out of and is a more abstract representation of the pleasant sensorimotor experiences that characterize desire. From these results, one may consider desire and love on a spectrum that evolves from integrative representations of affective visceral sensations to an ultimate representation of feelings incorporating mechanisms of reward expectancy and habit learning.